Thanks to each of you who commented on my first newsletter. Your responses were
informative and I welcome your continued thoughts and comments about the important
issues facing our city. Some suggested the newsletter should not be quite as lengthy,
so this newsletter is more succinct.

This month's newsletter will provide an update on the Council's work on the monorail.
I also discuss two issues that the committee I chair is working on - the creation of two
new alcohol impact areas (AIAs) and measures the City can take to protect consumers from
misleading information about tax refund anticipation loans.

I would appreciate your thoughts on Point of View and any other questions or comments
you may have. You can contact my office by calling (206) 684-8808 or by e-mail by
clicking here. Point of View
subscription and removal instructions can be found at the end of the newsletter.

It is an honor to represent you and I look forward to working with you.

On Monday May 3rd, the Council began making preliminary decisions regarding the
alignment of Seattle's future monorail system. The alignment includes the route that
the monorail will take and the location of the monorail stations.

The Seattle Monorail Project (SMP) is an independent agency authorized by
Seattle voters to develop, design and construct the monorail. The City has the
responsibility of approving various permits and agreements for the use of city
right-of-way for transportation purposes. The first issue voted on was whether or
not to send the monorail through the Seattle Center. The vote was 5-4 to allow it
to go through Seattle Center. I oppose allowing the monorail to go through Seattle
Center because I am deeply concerned about the adverse impacts on Seattle Center's
open space environment.

The second monorail issue voted on related to the minimum amount of clearance
between the monorail and buildings along Second Avenue in downtown. Businesses
and property owners are concerned about the potential safety risks and restrictions
on building operations. By a 6-3 vote, the Council amended the alignment legislation
by requiring 14 feet of distance between monorail and adjacent property along Second
Avenue.

I voted in support of this amendment because the monorail, should to the extent
possible, minimize the impact on adjacent properties. I would not have supported
this amendment without a provision to preserve an existing bike lane through the
downtown core.

Looking ahead, there are a number of issues the Council needs to evaluate
prior to a final alignment vote in June. The following is a schedule for the Council's
consideration of remaining issues:

The monorail was supported by the voters in three separate elections.
There may be times when I question or disagree with recommendations of the Seattle
Monorail Project. This does not diminish my strong support for successful
construction of the monorail. The Council has a responsibility to the residents
of this city to ensure that this major public works project serves the broader
community interests and goals. I am working to ensure the timely completion of
all Council decisions.

If you have any questions about the Council's ongoing consideration of the monorail,
or would like to share your thoughts, please contact me.

Last month, I convened a panel in the committee I chair to discuss the impact of tax
refund anticipation loans on our community. Tax refund anticipation loans offered by
commercial tax preparers allow customers to borrow against part or all of their expected
tax refund.

Consumer groups have raised questions about the practices and high fees associated with
the marketing and sale of these loans. In 2002, the Consumer Federation of America and
the National Consumer Law Center released a report stating that the typical refund
anticipation loan fee translates into annual percentage interest rates ranging from 67
percent to 774 percent. These loans are typically in place for only a short period of
time given that the IRS issues refunds filed electronically within 10 days. The report
revealed that almost 50 percent of taxpayers who had agreed to a refund anticipation
loan did not realize they were getting a loan.

I'm concerned that consumers are unclear about what they are agreeing to with these
loans compared to other options available. I want to look at ways to educate and protect
people from any misleading information.

At the committee hearing we heard from members of Washington Association for Community
Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and Professor Jennifer Romich from the University of
Washington that the working poor are most susceptible to these loans. They are more likely
to rely on for-profit commercial tax services due to education, language and literacy
barriers, and financial needs.

It was also interesting to learn that four out of every ten refund anticipation loan
borrowers are recipients of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a special tax benefit
for working families earning low or moderate incomes. It is estimated that in 2002,
approximately $324 million from the EITC, intended for working families, was diverted to
commercial tax preparers to pay refund anticipation loan fees.

I am exploring whether the City of Seattle could institute a set of disclosure
requirements to ensure that consumers have adequate information and details involving
refund anticipation loans to protect consumers and working families.

This month, the Housing, Human Services and Health Committee will consider a proposal
from the Mayor to create two new "alcohol impact areas" (AIAs) in the city. This
approach is a part of a more comprehensive effort towards reducing chronic public
inebriation in Seattle, which includes treatment, emergency services and other strategies.

In 2000, the City created its first AIA in Pioneer Square. City officials, community
members and local merchants adopted voluntary solutions to reduce public inebriation.
When those efforts failed, the City petitioned the Washington State Liquor Control Board
to impose mandatory restrictions on alcohol sales. That request was approved and the
Pioneer Square AIA has been in effect for seven months. Preliminary results indicate
that the number of arrests for alcohol abuse related crimes have declined in the Pioneer
Square AIA but there has been an increase in the number of public inebriates in areas
adjacent to the Pioneer Square AIA and the University District.

The first of two new proposed AIAs is in the Central Core area of the city which
includes Downtown, the Central Area, Capitol Hill, the International District, Belltown
and Uptown neighborhoods. The second is in the University District. A detailed map of
these areas can be found on the city's website at www.seattle.gov/council.

Designation would allow the City to work with community members to create voluntary
compliance measures with businesses that are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages in
order to curtail chronic public inebriation in these neighborhoods. If those efforts
fail, the Council would consider asking the Liquor Control Board to impose mandatory
restrictions.

AIA's are intended to help neighborhoods which are harmed by the presence of large
numbers of chronically inebriated people. AIA's do not help the alcoholic. I feel
strongly that any regulatory measure to address chronic public inebriation must be
coupled with clear strategies for treatment of alcoholism.

On Tuesday, May 11th at 5:30 p.m., the Housing, Human Services and Health Committee
held a public hearing on this issue. You can view the hearing via streaming video by
visiting www.seattlechannel.org
and it is replayed frequently on the Seattle Channel 21/28. Then on May 18th at 9:30 a.m.,
a tentative vote on this legislation is scheduled by the committee.

If you would like more information about the proposed alcohol impact areas, please
visit www.seattle.gov/council. or contact my office.

The most enjoyable part of each day is attending community events and meetings.
I enjoy the opportunity to visit and see first hand the important work taking place in
the neighborhoods. I hope to see you at one of these or future events.

If this edition of Point of View was shared with you and you would like to be added to
our distribution list, please send an e-mail to me by
clicking here If you would like to be removed from the distribution list,
please send an e-mail to to me by clicking here.
Other questions or comments about Point of View? Please call (206) 684-8808.